INDEX

1. Challenge in the present Para 1 Page 1-2 appeal

2. Background of the case Paras 2-9 Pages 2-6

3. Arguments on behalf of the Paras 10-13 Pages 6-10 appellants

4. Arguments on behalf of Paras 14-15 Pages 10-12 respondent no.1/plaintiff

5. Analysis and Findings Paras 16-38 Pages 12-25 CHALLENGE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL

1. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 11.09.1992 vide which the Ist Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 02.12.1988 passed by the trial Court and had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent 1 of 25 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145434 RSA-1920-1992 (O&M) [2] No.1 (presently represented by his LRs) for specific performance. BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.31-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (a) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145123 CRM-M-1189-2017 [2] proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused failed to pay any contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (a) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1, which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(a) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016.

1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.32-II dated 18.01.2016 titled as Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. Vijay Singh Jakhar and another (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 85 (e) of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (in short, 'Act of 1948') and summoning order dated 18.01.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar and all the consequential proceedings arising thereof.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Employees State Insurance Corporation (in short 'ESIC') filed criminal complaint Annexure P-1 against the petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar under Section 1 of 7 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145104 CRM-M-614-2017 [2] 85 (e) of the Act of 1948 wherein it was alleged that petitioner is proprietor and principal employer of M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar in terms of Sections 2(17) and 86-A of the Act 1948. The accused have failed to submit the return of contribution as required under Sections 39, 40 (1), 43 and 44 of the Act of 1948 read with Regulation 26 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulation 1950, for the contribution period ending 04/2011 to 03/2013 and thus, the accused have committed offence punishable under Section 85 (e) of the Act of 1948. The necessary sanction for prosecution required under Section 86 (1) of the Act of 1948 is taken from the competent authority before filing the complaint Annexure P-1 which was filed through S.S.O, ESIC, Hisar. On presentation of the complaint, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar took cognizance and as the complaint was filed by the complainant in his capacity as a public servant, recording of preliminary evidence was dispensed with and petitioner and M/s Jaat Senior Secondary School, Hisar were summoned under Section 85(e) of the Act of 1948 vide order Annexure P-2 dated 18.01.2016.

1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking regular bail.

2. Per paragraph 16 of the reply dated 14-10-2024, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

Sr. No. FIR No. Date Offenses Police Station

1. 331 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

2. 497 1994 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

3. 715 1998 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

4. 920 2004 Under section 379 IPC Paschim Vihar, East Delhi

CRM-43453-2024 Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Exemption from filing certified copies of Annexures P-1 to P-3 is granted and the same are taken on record with just exceptions. CRM-M-54564-2024

1. Relief Sought The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 168, dated 25.04.2024, under Sections 21(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS added later on), registered at Police Station Meham, District Rohtak.

1 of 9 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145894

2. Facts Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-

1. Since both the above appeals arise from a common verdict, made by the learned trial Judge concerned, hence both the appeals (supra) are amenable for a common verdict being made thereons.

2. Both the appeals (supra) are directed against the impugned verdict, as made on 20.09.2022, upon Sessions Case No.74 of 15.02.2018, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, wherethrough in 1 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145851-DB CRA-D-1106-2022 AND CRA-D-62-2023 (O&M) -2- respect of charges drawn against the accused qua offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, thus the learned trial Judge concerned, proceeded to record a finding of conviction against appellants-convicts. Moreover, through a separate sentencing order of even date, the learned trial Judge concerned, sentenced the appellants-convicts in the hereinafter extracted manner:

Business Wire India

McKay Brothers (“McKay” or “the Company”), a market leader in ultra-low latency market data and wireless networks, today announced that Citadel Securities has made a minority investment in McKay to support the continued growth of its global data and connectivity business.

Under the terms of the transaction, Citadel Securities will receive an equity stake in the Company and McKay’s co-founders, Stéphane Tyč and Bob Meade, will continue to hold the controlling majority of the Company’s equity. Financial terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

McKay will continue to operate independently and under its core business principles, which include offering its subscribers a level playing field and equal access to the lowest latency service.

Bob Meade, McKay co-founder, said: “Citadel Securities’ investment provides ongoing validation of McKay’s vendor model, which offers services on a level playing field to all subscribers. The investment also bolsters our already strong financial position and supports our commitment to innovation and technical excellence.”

Stéphane Tyč, McKay co-founder, added: “Our service vendor model makes our lowest latency available to all subscribers and ensures it cannot be dominated by any market participant, contributing to fair and competitive markets. This agreement with Citadel Securities maintains McKay’s autonomy and supports our continued growth.”

About McKay Brothers:

McKay - through McKay Brothers, LLC, Quincy Data, LLC and other controlled affiliates - are the world’s leading providers of ultra-low latency market data technology and wireless infrastructure. The company has served the financial markets' most demanding trading firms since 2012. McKay services are anchored by faster-than-fiber wireless networks interconnecting major global financial centers with curated market data and time-sensitive trade messages. All services are provided under a Level Playing Field policy, meaning the fastest services are made available to any subscriber.

Learn more at: www.mckay-brothers.com and www.quincy-data.com

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20241111274615/en/

as contained in Memo No. 274 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Nawada to the extent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for his regularization has been turned down.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been working as daily wager against Class-IV Patna High Court CWJC No.2171 of 2019 dt.11-11-2024 post since long. Despite his continuous services for a long period, when his claim has not been considered for regularization, he moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 15428 of 2010. The learned Court having considered the grievance of the petitioner has disposed off the writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondent no. 2, the District Magistrate, Nawada, to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant to the aforenoted direction, the petitioner filed a detailed representation. However, the claim of the petitioner has turned down by Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is put to challenge.

and submitted an inspection report on 11.05.2024.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in paragraph no. 9 of the inspection report dated 11.05.2024, the only allegation, which has been made, is regarding enhancement of charges in respect of hajri form disproportionately and Patna High Court CWJC No.10426 of 2024 dt.12-11-2024 discontinuance of the share of Advocates and Advocate clerks in the same, resulting in resentment in the Bar, apart from some allegations being made in the said report regarding functioning of the Committee during the period 2022 to 2024, for which the petitioner is not responsible, inasmuch as his financial power had been seized vide letter dated 19.07.2023.

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.673 of 2024, under Section 8/21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Patelnagar, District Dehradun. She has sought her release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, on 25.10.2024, 50.17 grams smack was allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant.

4. It is the case of the applicant that the alleged recovered quantity is less than commercial; there is no independent witness; there has been non-compliance of the provisions of the Act; she is not a previous convict.

2

Applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.138 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC, Police Station Rajpur, District Dehradun. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused have already been granted bail.

4. This fact is admitted by learned State Counsel.

5. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. The bail application is allowed.

2

7. Let the applicant be released on bail, on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR/Case Crime No.257 of 2023, dated 29.04.2023, under Sections 8/22 of The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the Act"), Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar. He has sought his release on bail. This is the second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, narcotic substances in commercial quantity was allegedly recovered from the applicant on 28.04.2023.

2

1. Mr. Devesh Upreti, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant - convict against the judgment and order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Champawat in Special Sessions Trial No. 49 of 2019 (State Vs. Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakki) whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 (b) of the NDPS Act with a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment of three month.

The applicant is in judicial custody in S.T. No.32 of 202 in connection with FIR/Case Crime No.139 of 2022, dated 21.07.2022, under Sections 302, 201, 304- B IPC, Police Station Kotwali Pithoragarh, District Pithoragarh. He has sought his release on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the deceased was married to the applicant 5 years prior to lodging of the FIR. They were blessed with a daughter. The deceased was staying in her mother's house along with her daughter. The FIR records that on 20.07.2022, at about 01:00 PM, the applicant took the deceased along with her daughter with him. At 02:30 PM on that date he informed the son of the informant that the deceased would return by evening. When the deceased did not return, next morning at 07:00 AM, the applicant was telephoned by the informant, but the applicant told that the deceased had returned on the previous evening. On the same day, the dead body of the deceased was found.

1. Mr. M. S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.

3. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant - convict against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Dehradun in Special Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2021 (State Vs. Shubham) whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 21

The applicant is in judicial custody in FIR No.1 of 2022, dated 03.05.2022, under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946, Police Station Cyber Crime, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail. It is second bail application of the applicant. His first bail application has already been rejected on 05.06.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Having considered, this Court is of the view that there is no new ground to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION

1. Vide this judgement, this court shall dispose of the aforementioned complaint case filed by the complainant namely, Samsher Singh against the accused, namely Vinod Kumar in respect of the dishonour of six cheques bearing no.415029 dated 31.05.2016 for an amount of Rs.45000/-, no. 415028 dated 25.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415027 dated 15.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415026 dated 01.05.2016 for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-, no. 415031 dated 09.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- and no. 415030 dated 07.06.2016 for an amount of Rs. 30,000/- all drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi Branch (2120) Maharaja Aggrasen Shopping Complex, LAX-7, Sector 9, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cheques in question").

2. The brief facts that have emerged from the DAR are that on 03.04.2017, ASI Usman Ali vide DD no. 3A had received an information regarding the present accident. He also received a call from Trauma Centre that the present accident had occurred. After receiving the call from Trauma Centre, ASI alongwith Ct. Mukesh reached the Trauma Centre and collected MLC no. 214228 of injured Raj Kumar. As per MLC, the doctor opined that the injured was "unfit for statement". IO met with an eye witness in the hospital, whose name was Guddu. IO recorded the statement of eye witness. Witness has stated that Raj Kumar had met with an accident when he was crossing the road on foot near Yamuna River. Eye witness, with the help of the driver of the offending vehicle, sent the injured to the hospital in the offending vehicle itself and went to the hospital by his motorcycle. On the basis of the MLC and statement of the eye witness, the offence under Section 279/337 IPC was found to have been committed.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs Only) on account of cost of dowry articles/ Istridhan etc. detained by the defendants. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present civil suit, the defendants no. 2 and 4 have expired.

Raj wati Vs. Kuldeep Page no. 2 Plaintiff's version as per the plaint

2. The plaintiff states that she is the mother of deceased late Smt. Sunita who was wife of the defendant no. 1 Kuldeep. The marriage of Late Smt. Sunita and the defendant no. 1 was solemnized on 20.02.1996 in accordance with Hindu rights and customs and the plaintiff claims to have spent an amount of more than Rs.5 lacs on the said marriage. The plaintiff relies on a detailed list of dowry articles annexed as schedule C to the plaint.

Brief statement of reasons for the decision

1. This case has been instituted by the complainant, Mr. Pawan Kumar under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the accused, Mr. Ved Prakash Dhuria for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "NI Act").

Brief Facts:

2. The substance of the allegations and assertion of the complainant is that the complainant had advanced a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the accused on 09.10.2018 for four months with interest at the rate of 2% per month, given the needs of the accused and cordial relations between them. It is alleged that a loan agreement and receipt dated 09.10.2018 were also executed between the parties. It is further alleged that the accused issued two post-dated cheques, cheque No. 000029 dated 06.04.2021 and cheque No. 000030 dated 06.04.2021 both for a sum of Rs. 2,34,000/- each drawn on Bank, Of India, Pitampura Branch, Delhi in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the by MEENA MEENA CHAUHAN CHAUHAN Date: 2024.11.11 15:18:42 +0530 "impugned cheque"). After an expiry of four months and despite repeated demands, the accused did not repay the loan amount, then, a legal notice dated 14.03.2019 was sent to the accused to discharge his liability. Then, on instructions of the accused, the complainant presented the impugned cheques at his bank. However, both were dishonoured by the bank for the reasons "Funds Insufficient" vide memos dated 07.04.2021. Then, a demand notice dated 13.04.2021 was sent to the accused's address via Speed Post calling upon him to pay the cheque amounts. Despite the service of notice upon the accused, neither the accused paid the cheque amount nor replied to the notice. Hence, it is alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:

FACTUAL MATRIX-

1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2020 at about 07:30 PM, at Road from Village Mundhela Kalan towards Bakhargarh Toll Tax, Delhi, accused was carrying illicit liquor in car bearing registration no.HR-48B-4970, without any valid licence or permit in that regard and knowing that prescribed duty has not been paid thereon and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 33/38/52(2) of Delhi Excise Act, for which FIR no.104/2020 was registered at the police station Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.

INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED

2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the accused, charge under Sections 33/38 of Delhi Excise Act was framed against accused on 08.06.2023 and charge under Section 52(2) of Delhi Excise Act was framed against acucsed Vikram on 16.05.2024. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

1. This is an criminal appeal under section 341 Cr.PC preferred by the appellant/ applicant against the impugned order dated 31.01.2020 passed by Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate SED/Saket Court, New Delhi whereby the application of appellant/applicant moved u/s 340 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

2. The grounds cited by the appellant against the impugned order are as under :

A. Because the Ld. Trial Court duly appreciated the fact that the Respondent Bank concealed the fact regarding the Appellant being in possession of the said property, and yet, in utter disregard of the prejudice caused to the Appellant due to such concealment, regarded the same as being non violative of the principles of natural justice.

1. Sl. No. of the case 10095/2017

2. Date of institution of the case 04.08.2017

3. Name of the Complainant Sh. Narinder Gambhir S/o Kishan Lal Gambhir R/o B-29, Ground Floor, Subhadra Colony, Opposite Shastri Nagar, Delhi-110035.

4. Name of Accused, parentage Sh. Vijay Kumar S/o Manoj Kumar and address R/o D-38, Lalita Block, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.

And Also at:

M/s Maha Vashno Electrical Co.

8. That attested copy of DAR is Ex. PW-1/1 already on record with the court, attested copy of Charge- sheet is Ex. PW-1/2 already on record with the court, copy of Fir is Ex. PW-1/3 already on record with the court, copy of MLC is Ex. PW-1/4 already on record with the court, copy of post mortem report is Ex. Pw-1/5 already on record with the court, copy of salary certificate is Ex. PW-1/6 already on record with the court, copy of mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/7 already on record with the court, copy of site plan is Ex. PW-1/8 already on record with the court, copy of Insurance Certificate of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/9 already on record with the court, copy fo R/C details of offending vehicle is Ex. PW-1/10 already on record with the court, copy of Driving Licence Verification report of respondent/accused is Ex. PW-1/11 already on record with the court, copy of arrest memo is Ex. PW-1/12 already on record with the court, Copies of Aadhar Cards of legal heirs are Ex. Pw-1/13 (Colly.) already on record with the court. Copy of Funeral receipt issued from Shamshan Ghat is Ex. PW-1/14. Copy of Death Certificate of my deceased father is Ex. PW-1/15.

CIC/SBIND/A/2023/633692

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

Page 1 of 5

(i) Entire file, inter alia, containing Copies of circulars, policies, notes, correspondence, Board resolutions, etc. generated on the issue of engagement of Housing Keeping Contracts, instead of getting such work done from the regular staff of the bank, and polices, circular etc. engagement of Contract labour by the bank. Entire record since last 12 years.

(ii) Copies of tender floated by the Bank for its Corporate Centre office at Wadam Cama Road, for Housekeeping Contract or engagement of contract labour for any activities, during last three calendar years,

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated NIL seeking the following information:

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated NIL seeking the following information:

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

:

The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated NIL seeking the following information:

"1 यह कि दिन ांि 11/09/2022, 22/09/2022 व 28/10/2022 िो दिए गए प्र र्थन पत्र पर आज ति उसि जव ब क्यों नह ां दिय गय अगर ि यथव ह हुई है तो क्य ि यथव ह हुई है उसिी सत्य पपत सांदहत ररपोर्थ िे ने िी िृप िरें ।

2 यह कि जजसिे खिल फ शिि यत िी गई उसिी ज ांच िी ि यथव ह DM, ADM, SDM न िरिे वह स्वयां िी क्यों िरते है । यह किसिे आिे ि पर होत है ।

3 यह कि DM, ADM, SDM िे प स शिि यत िरने पर ि यथव ह न होने पर जब आगे शिि यत िी ज ती है तो 5 ि म न र् म गथ में बैठे श्री अिोि िुम र वम थ (JSO) स हब बोलते है कि यह शिि यत िरने ि िोई फ यि नह ां है क्योंकि यह शिि यत यह से Forward िरिे Area Incharge िे प स भेज िे ते हैं। क्योंकि यह य र ज ग र्थन में किसी िी भी नौिर तबह लगती है जब उसिे प स िुबसुरती हो प िे गमथ हो य उसमें वजन हो इतने बर्े अधिि र यह अप िब्ि किसिे आिे ि पर बोल रहे है इसिी ज नि र ि ज ए।

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.04.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) "Copy of Service Book/PF of my husband late sh. Raju Ram Meena, (Peon)/Cat-

IV employee, was posted at PNB branch-PUR, circle office Alwar(Rajasthan)

(ii) Present status of payment payable in death case to the dependent of deceased employee with full details.

(iii) Copy of my application along with documents submitted for compassionate appointment and its Present status,

(iv) Please Provide reasons for unnecessary delay in processing the same.

Page 1 of 4

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.05.2023 seeking information on the following points:

(i) Party wise detailed break up of the amount pertaining to each of the debtors whose debt has been assigned vide aforesaid agreement.

Page 1 of 5

(ii) Details of Actual amount paid by the ARC to the bank pertaining to each individual debt.

(iii) Copies of Correspondence with regards to the above between the Assignor (Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd) and Assignee Invent Assets Securitisation Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd prior to and subsequent to the alleged Assignment

This second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 04/08/2021 passed in AS No.12 of 2020 by the Subordinate Judge, Theni, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 31/01/2020 passed in OS No.47 of 2012 by the District Munsif, Bodinayakkanur.

2.Plaint averments in brief:-

The plaintiffs are the grandsons of one Mariammal. The suit property belonged to Mariammal absolutely. In the suit property, a shop is situated at Kamarajar Bazar, which is the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiffs are the power agent of the above said Mariammal, by a power of attorney, dated 25/02/1997. Mariammal mortgaged the property to the defendant through a registered mortgage deed, dated 16/07/1982 for a consideration sum of Rs.30,000/-. The mortgage period was five years. The rate of interest was fixed at 12% per annum. On 19/07/1982, another agreement was entered into between the parties, by which it was agreed that the payment of interest for simple mortgage should be adjusted by giving possession of the mortgaged property to the defendant, which is mentioned in the schedule. It is also agreed that the defendant must enjoy the property for five years. The house tax assessment agreed to be paid by the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mortgagee. But the plaintiffs paid the taxes for the mortgaged property. On 19/07/1982, another sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid. Another mortgage deed was also executed on 19/07/1982. On 20/07/1982, another agreement was entered into. In the earlier mortgage deed, dated 19/07/1982 after the expiry of five years, the plaintiffs approached the defendant for redemption of mortgage on payment of Rs.60,000/-. But the defendant was evading and delaying. So, the suit is laid for delivery of possession after receiving the mortgage amount and for costs.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

These Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross Objection are at the instance of the petitioner / appellant and the respondent respectively. In both the cases, challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated November 7, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 24 CMA NO.3541 OF 2017 & CROSS OBJ. NO.51 OF 2019 2017 passed by the ‘Principal Family Court, Coimbatore’ ['Family Court' for short], in H.M.O.P.No.1445 of 2015. This Common Judgment will govern both of them.

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Common Judgment will govern the following Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed assailing the ‘Award dated January 24, 2019, passed in M.C.O.P.No.140 of 2016’ [henceforth ‘impugned Award’], by the ‘Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ariyalur (Chief Judicial Magistrate)’ [henceforth ‘Tribunal’]:

(i) C.M.A.No.3927 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation,

(ii) C.M.A.No.3204 of 2019 filed by the first respondent praying to set aside the impugned Award,

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 15.03.2024, thereby confirming the order dated 12.06.2019 passed by the second respondent, thereby rejecting the complaint lodged by the petitioner and to direct the third respondent to provide all amenities to the petitioner including food and shelter and also restrain the third respondent from torturing the petitioner and his wife.

2. The petitioner is the father and the third respondent is the son. The petitioner got married one Girija and gave birth to the third respondent and one daughter. While he was in service in the police department, he had purchased a property ad measuring 4½ cents comprised in Survey No.665/1B and 665/2 part situated at Echanari, Near Ammal Temple, Kurichi Village, Madhukarai Taluk, Coimbatore, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis by a registered sale deed dated 29.01.2010, bearing document No.446/2010. Thereafter, he constructed a house and was residing there.

These two writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioner based on the same fact situation and as such, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.2751 and 9303 of 2020

2. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as 'Grade-II, Police Constable' in TSP-I Battalion, Trichy and thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to District Armed Reserve Perambalur District and in the year 2004, he was transferred to District Armed Reserve Nagapattinam District and thereafter, he was transferred to Taluk Police Establishment in the year 2010 and then he was upgraded as ‘Grade I, Police Constable’ in the year 2006 and further upgraded as 'Head Constable' in the year 2011. The petitioner also claimed to have received 16 rewards for his performance and there were no adverse remarks against the petitioner through out his service.

Challenging the order of the Waqf Tribunal partly allowing the application directing the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board to register the T.O.Mohamed Thambi Waqf, Illayangudi Taluk, Sivagangai District as a seperate waqf, prepare a proforma report showing the "Rule of Succession" to the post of mutawalli as "hereditary", conduct a detailed enquiry among the legal representatives of the waqif/founder namely late T.O.Mohamed Thambi and appoint mutatwalli for the said waqf by following the procedures prescribed under the Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended in 2013) as per the intention of the waqif.

The Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5785 of 2022 in C.C.No.224 of 2024 dated 25.03.2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tirumangalam.

2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.41 of 2022 against 9 persons including the petitioner for the alleged offences under Sections 147,148, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(2) IPC and Section 4 of TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The first respondent, after completing the investigation, has filed a final report against 8 persons and also filed a report deleting the petitioner/9th accused from the above case before the jurisdictional Court. The learned Magistrate, after receipt of the charge sheet as well as the deletion report, has issued notice to the second respondent. The second respondent has entered into appearance and filed a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis protest petition in Crl.M.P.No.5785 of 2022 and the learned Magistrate, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order dated 25.03.2024 by holding that there existed prima facie case against the petitioner and ordered for issuance of summons to all the accused including the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order adding the petitioner as one of the accused and for issuance of summons, the present revision came to be filed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to recompute the pensionary benefits to the petitioners, who are all retired from service under the 2nd respondent management on the basis of average salary drawn by them for the last 10 months prior to their retirement and also direct the second respondent to pay arrears of pension.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with ICICI Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein by the Scheme of amalgamation with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees of Bank of Madura are protected.

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the petitioners an opportunity to exercise option notionally with effect from 1.8.2003 or any subsequent dates based on the date of cession of service, in any event as per the 9th bipartite settlement.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners were originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with the 1st respondent Bank under the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees were protected.

This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed by the ‘learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Villupuram’ ['First Appellate Court' for short] in A.S.No.69 of 2011 modifying the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the file of the ‘Principal Sub Court, Villupuram’ ['Trial Court' for short].

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit. Case of the Plaintiffs:

3. The Suit Properties along with some other properties belonged to one Adhimoolam. The said Adhimoolam died intestate 40 years before the date of Plaint. Govindasamy and Krishnan were the sons of said Adhimoolam.

The accused No.2 in C.C.No.245 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, has filed this Criminal Appeal before this Court challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him in the impugned judgment dated 05.05.2023. The conviction and sentence is as follows:

Conviction for the Offence under Sentence of Imprisonment Section 8(c) r/w 21(C) of the NDPS Act 12 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1,20,000/- in default to undergo 6 months S.I

12.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 406/ 468/471/ 420/ 120-B/34 I.P.C. read with Section 4/5 of The Prize, Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act in 1.C.C. No.1498 of 2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.953 of 2014 of the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak arising out of Bhadrak Town P.S. Case No.78 of 2014.

11.11.2024 Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard Senior learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the Informant. Perused the records.

3. This is an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. filed by the Petitioner for anticipatory bail, involving offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 66(C), 66(D) of I.T. Act in C.T. Case No.399 of 2024 of the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar arising out of Cyber Crime P.S. Case No.11 of 2024.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Byree P.S. Case No.95 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.946 of 2023, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 307, 507, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

This is an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Puruna Bazar P.S. Case No.79 of 2017 corresponding to G.R. Case No.765 of 2017 pending in the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (Cog.-I), Bhadrak for alleged commission of offences under sections 147/148/294/454/427/395/436/153-A/506/ 149 of the I.P.C.

Perused the F.I.R.

Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that first information report was not lodged against the petitioner but subsequently, he has been entangled in this case and similarly situated co-accused, namely, Sk. Bhalu has been directed to be released on anticipatory bail by this Court in ABLAPL No.8038 of 2017 vide order dated 12.07.2017 and on hearing learned counsel for the State, I am inclined to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail and accordingly, this Court directs that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid case, he shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer with further conditions that he shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required and he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing any facts to the Courts or to the Investigating Officer.

Heard.

2. At the instance of the opposite party No.2, the F.I.R. in connection with Ranpur P.S. Case No.10 of 2015 corresponding to S.T. Case No.22 of 2016 came to be registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341/ 323/ 294/ 354/ 307/ 506/324/452/427/34 of the IPC pending in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge (Women's Court), Nayagarh.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is that, on 10.01.2015, the complainant reported at the P.S. that, on the same day, when he was working with labourers, the petitioner Nos.1, 3 & 4 removed his stumps and destroyed. When the labourers opposed the same, they left the place. Then in the same evening, while the complainant was coming from his house to pay his labourers, the above accused persons being armed with lathi, katari etc. entered into his house and abused him in obscene languages. The petitioner No.2 attacked him by means of katari to kill him. At that time, one Sunil Samantaray of his village obstructed the same and he sustained bleeding injury on his left hand. Thereafter, his sister-in-law, father and mother also tried to rescue him, but the accused persons pushed them and dragged the saree of his sister- in-law and kicked her. At that time, his brother Harmohan Nayak, Prafulla Nayak, Gagan Nayak, Sanjay Nayak and others reached at the spot and rescued them. All the accused persons threatened to kill them. Hence, the F.I.R.

Date of Hearing :08.11.2024 :: Date of Order :11.11.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 in connection with Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack is taken up into consideration.

{{ 2 }}

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack in Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 remaining in the jail custody since 29.01.2024 as an under trial prisoner having been charged under Section 292-A, 212, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 66-E, 67-A & 67-B of the I.T. Act, 2000 along with his other co-accused persons on the allegations alleged against him that, due to the frequent talking between the petitioner and the victim since the month of May, 2022, they loved each other and the petitioner proposed the victim for marriage. Thereafter, in the months of August and November, 2023, the petitioner took the victim by his motorcycle to the OYO Hotel on three different dates and made sexual intercourse with her in a room of that hotel in each occasion and took the naked/nude photographs of the victim inside the room of that hotel through his mobile phone and sent the said nude/naked photographs to the mobile phone of the victim through whatsapp and the said nude photographs of the victim were in her mobile phone, to which, she (victim) had not disclosed before {{ 3 }} any of her family members including her parents. Thereafter, there was disturbance between the victim and the petitioner, for which, the victim stopped her talking with the petitioner. So, the petitioner made the nude photographs of the victim viral. Thereafter, on dated 07.01.2024, she (victim) lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner at Sadar police station, Cuttack, alleging the aforesaid allegations.